Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Praveen Kumar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 21 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3563 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN NAIR
T.C 1014/99/4, MANNARAKANAN VATTIYURKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013.
BY ADV RAVI KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
THYCAUD BRANCH GEETH TOWER, THYCAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2 BRANCH MANAGER
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
THYCAUD BRANCH, GEETH TOWER, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR A
SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.3563/2024
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent-Bank and seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice.
2. The petitioner states that he was granted an Overdraft facility by the Bank for an amount of ₹24 lakhs in the year 2010. The Overdraft facility was extended from time to time till the year 2022 enhancing the amount to ₹60 lakhs. The petitioner was also granted an additional loan of ₹16 lakhs during the Covid-19 pandemic period.
3. According to the petitioner, there was some default in maintaining the loan account and hence the W.P.(C) No.3563/2024 :3: account was declared as NPA. The overdue amount payable by the petitioner is only ₹12 lakhs. However, the Bank has invoked proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has issued Ext.P1 possession notice dated 19.11.2022.
4. The petitioner would urge that the coercive action taken by the respondents is illegal. The petitioner is ready to pay the overdue amount in instalments. Classification of the account as NPA and taking possession of the residential property of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
5. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner has miserably failed to maintain the loan account. The repeated requests made by the officers of the Bank did not yield any result. Consequently, as per the norms W.P.(C) No.3563/2024 :4: prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner's loan account was declared as NPA. The Bank is proceeding strictly adhering to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. A writ petition is not maintainable against Ext.P1 proceedings.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
7. Ext.P1 possession notice would indicate that the dues payable by the petitioner is exceeding ₹81,61,985/-. Ext.P1 has been issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Against Ext.P1, the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
8. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the W.P.(C) No.3563/2024 :5: provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon'ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.
9. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
10. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756] declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act.
11. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that W.P.(C) No.3563/2024 :6: when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.
12. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/13.05.2024 W.P.(C) No.3563/2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3563/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 19.11.2022.